Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31330 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through D.M. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri K.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect plot no. 3338 with an area of 0.975 hectare, plot no. 3339 area 0.028 hectare, plot no. 305 area 0.4940 hectare and plot no. 3314 area 0.2390 hectare and further prayed that his pending application dated 22.8.2019 addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jhansi in respect of the above grievance may be directed to be disposed of by the competent authority.
From the pleadings that have come to be raised, it clearly transpires that the petitioner is claiming some bhumidhari rights over the land in question on the basis of some will deed executed by his grandfather in favour of his father and he claims to be in possession over the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the property does not stand fortified with boundaries, the respondent no. 2 is interfering with the bhumidhari rights of the petitioner.
Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation has submitted that the petitioner's father had already filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 14716 of 2019 which this Court declined to entertain by passing the following order on 26.4.2019:-
"Heard Sri Karan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners by means of this petition seeks a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the land in question and that they should be restrained from taking any action during pendency of the Civil Suit No. 432 of 2018 in regard to the land in dispute.
Since the petitioner has already preferred civil suit and the same is pending, the petitioner may very well apply for interim injunction therein and seek necessary protection.
Accordingly, we do not feel it appropriate to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in this petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
When confronted with the query as to whether the petitioner's father has already approached this Court and got the writ petition dismissed claiming rights in respect of the same property, counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to confine this writ petition to prayer no. 2 only which is for the disposal of the application and consideration by the respondents.
In our considered opinion, once according to his own admission the land has come to be owned by his father on the basis of will deed executed by his grand father, the petitioner cannot claim any right during the life time of his father. However, since the petitioner's father is already claiming his rights regarding title of the land in question in a civil suit bearing no. 432 of 2018, no parallel proceeding can be permitted to be drawn by way of writ petition. We find the petitioner to be an unscrupulous litigant because he has conveniently concealed not only the factum of pending suit instituted by his father but has also concealed the filing of the earlier writ petition. In our opinion such litigants cannot be permitted to waste the precious time of the court which is meant for genuine cases that are pending for final hearing before this Court and the Court is definitely reeling under pressure of huge pendency. The case in hand is of such litigant, who plays game of hide and seek and the precious time of the Court gets wasted and those, who are litigating for their genuine rights, their cases are not heard in time causing serious prejudice to their rights and interest. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 has observed that "in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases".
In view of the above, we are dismissing this writ petition with exemplary cost that we quantify as Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within eight weeks from today, failing which it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Shiraz